Allahabad Court January 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangadeen Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All355
ORDERJ.S. Trivedi, J.1. The opposite parties filed an application under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act for leave to institute a suit against the applicant stating that the trust in suit is being mismanaged by the applicant and the income of the trust misappropriated.2. The suit was contested by the applicant. The learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowed the application and accorded permission to the opposite parties to institute the suit. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge.3. Two points have been canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the applicant: (1) That the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to dispose of the application under Section 18 in the absence of any special notification by the State Government empowering him in that behalf and (2) That the learned Additional District Judge has, not given any specific finding that the trust is a public trust. Reliance has been placed by him in Bhagwan Sitara...
Parasram and ors. Vs. Smt. Naraini Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All357
K.B. Asthana, J.1. Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants, has sought to raise an interesting point in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the debt having been incurred by the major members of the joint Hindu family for the purpose of the marriage of a minor member would not be binding on the joint Hindu family as the marriage of a minor being prohibited by virtue of the provisions of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, the debt would be for illegal purposes and not for legal necessity. Reliance has been placed on Tattya Mohyaji Dhomse v. Rabha Dadaji Dhomse : AIR1953Bom273 , Rambhau Ganjaram v. Rajaram Laxman : AIR1956Bom250 and Hansraj Bhuteria v. Askaran Bhuteria : AIR1941Cal244 . Learned counsel for either party at the bar were not able to cite any case decided by the Allahabad High Court on the subject.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Daulatram and Ghanshyam, second and third defendants in the suit giving rise to this appeal, e...
Ram Sahai Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow Camp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All359
Lokur, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are listed for admission. All of them are cases arising within the jurisdiction of the Judges sitting at Lucknow as determined under the first proviso to Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Amalgamation Order'. In view of the Full Bench decision in Nirmal Dass v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1972 All WR (HC) 10 = (AIR 1972 All 200 (FB)), a preliminary question arises whether these cases can be entertained and heard at Allahabad. The Full Bench, on a consideration of the provisions of Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, expressed the view inter alia, by a majority of four to one, as follows-(1) A case falling within the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. (2) However, if such a case is presented at Allahabad, the Judges at Allahabadcannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. The case should be ...
Suresh Chandra Vs. Puttu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1336
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. When this case came up for hearing before our brother Md. Hamid Hussain. he appears to have been of the opinion that there was a conflict in the decisions of this court with regard to the applicability of Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceedings following a conditional order passed under Section 133 Sub-section (1) of the Code. In order to resolve the conflict, he referred this case to a larger Bench and as a result it has come up before us.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this Reference are that applicant Suresh Chandra by an application D/- 1st July, 1965. moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Kannauj, to initiate proceedings under Section 133 of the Code against opposite-party Puttu Lal for removal of some alleged unauthorised encroachments from what was claimed to be a public pathway. The case appears to have had a chequered career and ultimately the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Tehsildar. who recommended that no...
Kesho Ram Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All360
Satish Chandra, J.1. This special appeal is directed against an order dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. It arises out of proceedings under Chapter IX-A, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, holding that the respondents had become adhivasis. The connected writ petition is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue staying the hearing of two second appeals.2. Smt. Bhagwati, the predecessor of Kesho Ram appellant, held the land in dispute as her sir. She let it out to the respondents on 14-2-1944 for five years on an annual rent of Rs. 264/- Soon after the expiry of the period of lease, she instituted a suit for ejectment of the respondents under Section 175/179, U.P. Tenancy Act. The erstwhile tenants contested the suit. They pleaded that they had paid Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff as a loan on the understanding that the loan would be set off against the rent of the land; and so they were entitled to remain in possession till the loan was discharged. They...
Munnu and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All59
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. The opposite party filed an application under Order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for permission to sue as a pauper. She also attached a separate plaint to her pauper application claiming partition of a house and a shop valuing her share at Rs. 26,000/- and odd. This application was contested by the present petitioners before the lower court on the ground mainly that the opposite party was not pauper. The lower court found that she was a pauper and allowed her to sue as pauper. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for permission to sue as a pauper under order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code should have been rejected by the lower court under Rule 5, of Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code as it was not framed in accordance with Rule 2 of Order XXXIII Civil Procedure Code. Rule 2, it is pointed out provides that an application for permissionto su...
Mathura Datta Joshi Vs. Keshav Datta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All268
K.N. Srivastava, J. 1.This is an appeal by the unsuccessful defendant-appellant, arising out of the following facts:The defendant-appellant was the owner of twenty shares out of seventy shares in a house. He sold his share to certain persons. The plaintiff-respondents filed a pre-emption suit and obtained a pre-emption decree in 1948, The plaintiff-respondents then obtained symbolical possession in 1949. They filed the present suit for possession against the defendant.2. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and raised the plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession. The main ground on which the suit appears to have been contested was that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by twelve years rule of limitation, although no specific plea seems to have been taken in the written statement. On account of there being no specific plea in the written statement, no issue was framed about limitation.3. However, it appears that in the trial court the issue of limitation was pressed ...
Ascharajlal Ram Parkash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR477(All)
1. The assessee was assessed in the status of an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1961-62. In the assessment order the Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on a truck purchased by the assessee for the purpose of its business. The depreciation allowed amounted to Rs. 3,000. An appeal was filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and one of the grounds was that as the assessee did not furnish the particulars in its return necessary for allowing depreciation, the Income-tax Officer should not have allowed it any amount by way of depreciation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the plea and dismissed the appeal. A second appeal was filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also rejected the plea that depreciation should not have been allowed. It seems that the assessee took this plea because the truck was sold by it for Rs. 10,000 in October, 1963, and the difference between the original cost and the writ...
Ambika Singh Vs. State of Utttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1712
ORDERS. Malik, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The relevant facts are that there was a report against two accused, of whom the applicant was one of theft. The police after investigations charge-sheeted the co-accused but submitted a final report against the applicant. The final report was accepted by the Magistrate concerned. Therefore an application was moved on behalf of the informant not to accept the final report and to try the applicant also in the case under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. That application was also rejected Thereafter the co-accused namely. Ramai alias Makhnoo, was tried by the Magistrate concerned and was convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Makhnoo went, up in appeal against his conviction and sentence. -The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate and remanded the case for a fresh trial with the direction that the applican...
Girwar Singh Nirmal Vs. Smt. Premavati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All474
ORDERJ.S. Trivedi, J.1. This is a revision of the husband against the judgment of the District Judge, Aligarh. The applicant had filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the alternative for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, cruel treatment, callous behaviour of the opposite party and leading an immoral ana adulterous life. Opposite party contested the application. The application was decided by the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh and was dismissed. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial Court. Learned District Judge converted the appeal into revision holding that the appeal was not maintainable. Learned District Judge, however, disposed of the revision on merit and dismissed the revision. Hence this revision by the husband.2. First contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Court below was wrong in holding that no appeal lay. His contention is that Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »